InternetNews.com states: "Microsoft (or a really smart ISV) should build a full application manager for Windows, similar to what most Linux distributions do today." Most Windows applications come with their own distinctive updating mechanism (much like Mac OS X), instead of having a centralised updating location like most Linux distributions offer. While it certainly wouldn't be harmful for Windows to gain such a feature - the question remains: isn't it time we rethink program installation and management altogether?

I'd agree, author doesn't know what he's saying. If you look at the typical Ubuntu install they give you half a dozen repositories to install from and you can turn them on and off. You can even add third party repositories like the famous PLF (penguin liberation front) or Automatix and the package manager software takes all the versions into account when installing software. Remove a repo and all the software versions (at least try) to drop back to the next level you have installed. It's not perfect, it still works on scripts, not working with the actual system you have, but it's way better than the other guys.

I'd agree, author doesn't know what he's saying. If you look at the typical Ubuntu install they give you half a dozen repositories to install from and you can turn them on and off. You can even add third party repositories like the famous PLF (penguin liberation front) or Automatix and the package manager software takes all the versions into account when installing software.

If you include the medibuntu repository in your apt sources, and add the medibuntu key (which AFAIK should be OK if you are not resident in the US), then it will become a well-integrated part of the package management system, with updates and every good feature.

Automatix essentially provides a similar service to Medibuntu, but it does so outside of the Ubuntu package management system. Not recommended.